![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
no subject
Not really but it's useful because presumptive limits on access to books would be grounds for screaming by the ACLU and a lot of other people. I'd be screaming with them, but I find the crickets we hear from the left on 'common sense' gun control measures to be decidedly wrong.
While I have not read the entire text of the Parker vs DC case, I have followed it and I have watched it closely. One of the arguments that the DC attorneys made was that you could possess a firearm in the home but just in an unassembled form. However looking back through the citations. The DC position and law was that Handguns were illegal and that rifles and shotguns must be disassembled. There was no exceptions for self-defense. They stated that that made their 'ban'.
So that basically equates to a book, never to be opened but you could own it. Never mind all book stores had been forced to be closed. You cannot buy handguns out of state. Long arms may be purchased in the next state over. So even IF there was an allowance for handgun ownership IT was still restricted to so much that it was functionally nonexistent as a right.
And looking at the actual court decision by the District Court it's pretty clear that the court felt that 22-4504 prohibited the carry of a firearm even within the home because the code in fact does NOT qualify it as in public. Carrying around your own property is not excepted. No license, you can't carry it.
7-2507.02 required long arms to be disassembled or locked up.
From the decision: "Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a
handgun. The District, in refusing his request, explicitly relied
on D.C. Code ยง 7-2502.02(a)(4)."
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
What he means is that he doesn't think he CAN get a gun ban passed. But what does a trace system over and above what's already in place vis a vis 4473s? Ballistic finger printing? That's unworkable. Taggants? Also technologically and logistically unworkable. What other forms? Requirements that ALL firearms sales be taxed and registered? The ATF can't keep the NFA registry straight. There's an infinitesimally small proportion of NFA weapons in the NFA registry as compared to the total number of firearms in circulation. Canada can't even get ITS guns registered accurately. How's that going to work in the US?
We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."
There's two realities. One where you have to ask permission of the government and where your rights are closely controlled and restricted and one where you have a right to defend yourself with out the government exerting truckloads of prior restraint. He patently endorses the former and I challenge you to establish otherwise.
no subject
It could trench on the reasons for which Pistol Permits were granted. To whit, for defensive purposes in ones home, and none being granted.
However, it's still a longer process to get a drivers license in most states than buy a firearm.
That's a VERY poor analogy. You should not require a license to own a firearm any more than you must have a license to own a car. With the books, I was addressing the exercise of the right and prior restraint.
My gun license took 6 months to clear and required a Drivers license, a background check and fingerprints. I didn't have to submit to a GBI Background check with my automobile license and I certainly didn't pay nearly $50 for the paperwork. Heck, even my drivers license for the Class A Non Commercial License was less paperwork.
Obama on Guns and Pakistan part II
Hd can't even get the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment in his statements. It's not about teaching your kids to shoot or hunting. It's about self defense from tyrants foreign and domestic. Since he wants to restrict us to single shot or bolt action weapons ONLY for hunting he clearly doesn't support the prime basis for the 2nd Amendment or it's exercise.
He wants to crack down on the abuses in the streets of chicago? Fine, make sure the violent offenders STAY in jail. Clean up the Chicago PD, take the fiefdom away from the Daley family. Make it so if I come for a visit, My State issued firearms license is valid there just like my state issued Drivers license is.
If Georgia stopped accepting New York or Illinois Drivers licenses and started arresting people from those states what drove through because we don't recognize their licenses, you'd have people coming out of the wood work screaming about violations of rights. I'd agree, but why does the Full Faith and Credit Clause NOT apply to CCW permits issued by states?
Do you honestly think you'll ever hear Obama defend your right to purchase ammo, a handgun or your legal ability to carry a firearm?
He also voted in 2004 on a law allowing retired law enforcement to carry concealed weapons.
Great. So the agents of the state get a pass while the rest of us have to stay in our place. Gotta love equal protection under the law as exacted from a supposed liberal.
Your link does not provide the quote you show. Your analysis of his statement though is faulty. He is calling for a surgical strike against these targets, not rolling in with the 7th Cavalry. Kind of like this attack on Thursday. Just a note from the article, "The United States is officially barred from conducting operations in Pakistan, but it has launched several aerial attacks in the country's tribal areas, including the one that killed Libi, according to U.S. intelligence sources."
Well, I can't know exactly what he means because he's not really giving solid intentions.
My understanding is that we get approval from the Pakistani government for the air-strikes either before or after while we're working with them. Of course if we're already performing specific strikes with Manned and UnManned fighters, and Obama thinks we need change and wants MORE action, presumably he does mean ground forces forcing the border with out Pakistani permission.
Between his stance on Lebanan, Iraq, Afghanistan and his inability to tell the difference between US troops vs Brits and who leads a platoon, Obama doesn't really strike me as a very good choice for president.
So it's okay if we do it under Bush, but not if a democrat does it?
If the Left gets to pillory President Bush as dangerous and a terrorist because of unilateral action and the left at the same time endorses a candidate who has called for it on multiple times I get to point out the utter inconsistencies of the candidates position vis a vis the complaints with George Bush as President.
Re: Obama on Guns and Pakistan part II
Which has been something that I think they SHOULD be forced to do. It's the principle of the FFCC. States are prohibited by the constitution in entering into treaties and agreements like a CCW reciprocity agreement. How are licenses for driving a car addressed? I've always understood it to be the FFCC.
And that article refutes his level of stated support.
"He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind."
That's ballistic fingerprinting and backdoor registration. Fiscally unworkable and technically difficult.
He went on in his speech: "Obviously we have to first and foremost do everything we can to take reasonable steps to keep our children safe," she said. "And while safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights, we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang members and people with mental health problems."
To which I must ask, why not take those dangerous individuals whom you cannot trust to possess firearms legally (and who routinely possess them illegally) off the street and keep them off the street?
Obama's comments about US troops came from his staff having spoken to a US Army Captain
Actually I watched the video of him saying it. He said the captain deployed part of his platoon to Iraq and part of it to Afghanistan and that they deployed without rifles and had to take AKs from Taliban. So many things about that are just utterly confusing.
I haven't complained about Bush specifically targeting al-qaeda or the Taliban. I have complained about his going into Iraq. Obama's comments about Pakistan stem from the fact that in 2005 we failed to strike out of fear of damaging diplomatic relations.
War is a question of making fewer mistakes than the other guy. I wish we'd done the air-strike but we need to be sensitive and prudent when we do act. I've read a lot of operational actions in WWII. The number, scope and body count attached to those mistakes are legion. From what I've seen, compared to WWII, we're doing damn good in Iraq. Compared to what other folks have found in Afghanistan when they invaded, we're doing REALLY well there too. The Mountains west of the Punjab are NOT for the faint of heart to invade. They're not for the foolish either.
However, stories abut the military being under equipped and under supplied have been common since this whole thing started.
The suggested link doesn't work for me at all.
Procurement has been a serious issue LONG before this war. The worst examples I've heard of are during the 90s when units couldn't qualify soldiers on small arms because they didn't have enough ammo. One specific case had them able to qualify ONE soldier with the M249 with the ammo available or 2 soldiers in a transition qualification level. The Serbian exercise was funded out of procurement and maintenance budgets which made things excessively tight, I disagree with Congress withholding the funds, But I'd argue that continuing the mission with out the funding raises some serious questions.
The fact that we're still running NG battalions through the Balkans today and no-one complains, I have to ask, what exactly is the left unhappy about? It's not ok if a NG troop deploys to Iraq. It is ok if he deploys to the Balkans. There's a hell of a lot less shooting but mechanical wear and tear on materials and supply infrastructure is the same whether the M113's are patrolling a road into Ugljevik in the Balkans or up MSR Michigan.